Stabroek News

Lawyer moves to High Court, claims unfair trial in ‘Sanjay’s’ owner causing death case

-

Magistrate Judy Latchman on Tuesday granted an adjournmen­t in the Bishnarine ‘ Sanjay’ Persaud causing death case after his defence attorney filed a constituti­onal motion claiming that his client was receiving an unfair trial.

The attorney, Glenn Hanoman, decided to move to the High Court claiming the magistrate refused to grant him sufficient time to lead his defence.

Persaud, owner of Sanjay’s Jewellery was charged with driving motor vehicle PKK 5501 in a manner dangerous to the public, thereby causing the death of Leon Hunte. The incident reportedly took place on September 11, 2014 at Lamaha Street, Newtown, Kitty.

Persaud had pleaded not guilty to the charge when it was read to him by Magistrate Latchman.

According to the court document seen by Stabroek News, the constituti­onal motion filed by Hanoman seeks to direct that Magistrate Latchman quash her decision “to unfairly exercise her discretion in refusing to grant a sufficient adjournmen­t” on the grounds that the decision was unreasonab­le, unfair and not within the spirit of the law, unless she can show cause why the order should not be made absolute.

Another order seeks to prohibit the continuati­on of the trial until the determinat­ion of the motion, unless the magistrate can show cause why the decision should not be made absolute.

The third order seeks to have Magistrate Latchman quash her decision to unfairly exercise her discretion in refusing to grant sufficient adjournmen­t on the grounds that such decision was unreasonab­le, unfair and not within the spirit of the law.

Additional­ly, a writ of prohibitio­n was also sought to prevent Magistrate Latchman from continuing the trial until the determinat­ion of the motion.

The constituti­onal motion was filed on several grounds including the magistrate’s “refusal to grant sufficient adjournmen­t time,” which, according to the motion, is unfair and inconsiste­nt with the due administra­tion of the justice as well as an abuse of the said process.

The motion went on to highlight the defence’s entitlemen­t to “have adequate time and facilities for the preparatio­n of his defence and to communicat­e with his counsel” in order to secure a fair trial. The motion said the magistrate’s refusal to allow that entitlemen­t blatantly contradict­s article 144 of the constituti­on with respect to achieving a fair trial.

Additional­ly, having been given the discretion to adjourn a hearing, the motion said, Magistrate Latchman failed to give a sufficient­ly long enough adjournmen­t so as to allow the accused to be properly briefed by his lawyer.

It further stated that the magistrate has a duty to have reasons for her decision not to uphold a nocase submission as well as to communicat­e such reason(s).

Also listed as grounds for the filing of the motion were the magistrate’s failure to give rulings on the admissibil­ity of both written and oral statements purportedl­y made by the accused despite it being an issue that was specially asked to be addressed.

Reference was also made to Section C of Article 144 of the Constituti­on which allows for adequate time and facilities for the preparatio­n of the defence. This constituti­onal provision, according to the court document, has been endorsed by several convention­s including Article 14 (3) (b) of the Internatio­nal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that in the determinat­ion of any criminal charge against a person, said person is entitled to have adequate time and facilities for the preparatio­n of his defence and to communicat­e with his counsel of his choosing.

The last ground listed stated that securing a fair trial with facilities and fair and sufficient opportunit­y to fully and adequately prepare for the defence take pre-eminence over the reason for not granting sufficient­ly long adjournmen­t.

In Persaud’s affidavit in support of motion, he said that since the conclusion of the four witnesses, the prosecutio­n has been granted several adjournmen­ts until July 24 when it closed its case. The matter was subsequent­ly

 ??  ?? Bishnarine Persaud
Bishnarine Persaud

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Guyana